http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD ... 0FX_RV670/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/ ... s_its_web/
So after all the hype around Phenom/Barcelona and it's "true" quad-core approach, we end up with this:
* Slower clock per clock
* Uses more power
* Costs more than Q6600 while performs worse
* Paper Launch?
* Low Frequencies
* Limited Overclocking
Edit: btw, here's Deep Fritz 10 Scaling with the new CPU's .. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/ ... age31.html .. So for computer chess Intel still has the better and faster platform.
Anand : The problem is, and I hate to ruin the surprise here, Phenom isn't faster than Intel's Core 2 Quad clock for clock. In other words, a 2.3GHz Phenom 9600 will set you back at least $283 and it's slower than a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Quad Q6600, which will only cost you $269. And you were wondering why this review wasn't called The Return of the Jedi.
Hardocp: Let’s Just Say It
It has been a long road for the computer enthusiast that looks to AMD for solutions. There is no other way to put it; I am disappointed in AMD’s Phenom. The Phenom is nine months late to market and has a hard time keeping up with Intel’s Core 2 processors when it comes to a clock to clock comparison. While you can cherry pick a suite of benchmarks that might give a Phenom to Core 2 comparison a good look on a clock to clock basis, the fact is Intel has better instructions per clock and better scaling than AMD’s Phenom
Not looking good for AMD... not at all. Conroe already is faster and Penryn will only extend the lead(Not to mention Nehalem!). They really need to bump up the Freq. and that does not seem likely with all the problems they are having now. TLB errata prevented them launching 2.4Ghz or faster parts, probably until late Q1 08, and countless bugs on the chipset/BIOS.
FiringSquad sums it pretty well..
This is the exact same position AMD was in roughly two years ago – boy how quickly things have changed…